User talk:Wazzawazzawaz

NOTE: the edit history of this user indicates the account was created entirely for vandalism and trolling, that this user was inadvertently revealed to probably also be using IP 216.164.203.90 at the time, and despite an apparently feigned naïveté also exhibited immediate familiarity of blocking procedures and an indication of immediate awareness of "Riley on rails Tape Recorder" as a "WoW" incarnation. I am thus blocking this account permanently as merely another incarnation of a known troll-vandal. ~ Kalki 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) See also IP 216.164.203.90 at Wikipedia for some characteristic edits of this vandal. ~ Kalki 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the initial dialog with this user, that occured prior to blocking:

One tells a joke, rather than asks it, and I cannot entirely know if I will mind it or not beforehand, but the wiki doesn't exist for joke telling, or irrelevant discussions on non-wiki matters, but rather for the collecting of quotes. But of course I am curious as to what idea of a "joke" is prompting your inquiries. ~ Kalki 02:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions might be, I will have to ask you to stop asking irrelevant questions on random user's talk pages. That is not what the wiki exists for, and is not appropriate activity. ~ Kalki 02:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not angry, but neither am I pleased. You have my permission to tell me whatever you might think is notable... but I must repeat, that engaging in irrelevant dialog with users here is not what the wiki exists for. It is not a talk forum, but rather a project focused on the collecting and organizing of quotations. Some degree of personal dialog between users is acceptable, but it is not actually one of the purposes of the project. ~ Kalki 02:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot honestly say that your "joke" has brightened my day, and that anyone would be inclined to think such jokes would is rather depressing. I would suggest that you browse the project and read "Wikiquote:What Wikiquote is not" and other policy pages to get an idea of what the project actually is for, and ask you to please refrain from initiating discussions that are not relevant to the project. Too much activity of that sort is a nuisance to others, and could end up getting you blocked from editing. ~ Kalki 02:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes recently added

I concede that there might be such a line by Gandhi, but it is not evident in my google searches; providing a page number and publisher would be helpful in perhaps eventually confirming your assertions. The tone of your dialog and the fact that there also appears to be no "Jeffery Garhmand" as an author or subject of any books at all, does not enhance your credibility at this point. ~ Shadow 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If I might jump in on this discussion, as I just pointed out below, an ISBN number or other verifiable publication information would be useful. A person's claim of physical proof is not verifiable — not even if it comes from Wikipedia's founder — and a central tenet of Wikimedia Foundation materials is verifiability. Providing publication information that can be independently verified is necessary. There are many independent sources that may be used for verification with this data. For instance, it is almost certain that the Library of Congress will have a record of any English-language book authored by Gandhi (as well as quite a few non-English ones, as my brief check of its 599 records for Gandhi revealed). So far, I found nothing called Gandhi: An Autobiography, but more details could help find such a book.

Wazzawazzawaz, if you wonder why it is so important to be able to verify information, let me point out that Wikimedia projects deal with literally thousands of vandals every day, from people who simply write expletives across articles, to sophisticated ones who enjoy creating bogus articles with realistic-looking but completely fake "sources". Since we try not to prevent anyone who demonstrates minimal good faith from participating in editing, we must have standards that allow this global community to continually verify its texts. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to your multiple postings

Hay, Mind if I tell you a joke? Wazzawazzawaz 02:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you don’t want to hear it. Anyway, what should I do when some wiseass geek kid removes my Gandhi quote just because he can’t find it on Google? I have it in a hardback book about him right in front of me. You know, what is this world coming to when people use computers for everything. Wazzawazzawaz 03:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I take it, you don't respond to messages/questions ? Wazzawazzawaz 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wazzawazzawaz, you are making and acting on many assumptions about Wikiquote and wikis in general that are likely to quickly earn you the reputation of being a nuisance editor. In addition to the points that Kalki made above, allow me to add a few in response to your questions that I've cited immediately previous:

You cannot assume that someone is going to respond immediately to your postings. Wikis are not telephone calls, instant message services, or chat rooms. Users may be absent for days, weeks, or even months, and one has no way to tell when they might return.

I did not respond quickly to your queries because I was (and am) busy on a very time-consuming project that is related to Wikiquote's purposes. I also rarely engage in "chit-chat", boring though that makes me.

Your use of the phrase "wiseass geek kid" when referring to an editor with whom you disagree is against the Wikimedia Foundation's policy of no personal attacks. It is a bad idea to assume anything about the nature of editors. Even attempting to deduce their personalities and other facets, simply based on their edits, can be challenging. (I have, in the past, been quite entertained by some of the gross misunderstandings people have had about me that were based on my user page and picture.)

I cannot address your question about the Gandhi quote because you didn't specify what the quote was, who removed it, and when this happened. The general question of how to address content disputes is to bring it up on the article's talk page. Any editor can add, edit, or delete a quote. If two or more disagree about the text or the desirability of the quote, they should discuss it — civilly — on the talk page.

If you have a book with the quote, the best thing to do is to cite the title, author, ISBN and/or publisher and date, and page number as a full source. (You can see how this is done on any page with a "Sourced" section. Robert A. Heinlein has a number of citations with various levels of specificity, the most complete being under The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.) This enables other editors to verify the quote, and gives you the moral high ground in arguing for specific wording. It does not, however, guarantee that someone won't disagree with you. The entire Wikiquote community is the "editing board", and like any board, we must discuss with each other what quotes we as a community wish to include or exclude. (Wikiquote does not attempt to include all quotes on any substantial subject, just a representative sample, so we must negotiate such matters with each other.)

In your future postings and activity here, I hope that you (A) have more patience while waiting for responses, (B) avoid denigrating others just because you disagree with them, and (C) do not use Wikiquote talk pages and the village pump as a chat room. Thank you for your cooperation. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Investigating user complaint

This user has complained that the evidence supporting his/her blocking has not been made clear. I am compiling information to investigate this. However, this user has also demonstrated a complete lack of patience and is actively attempting to revert earlier findings posted by sysops in advance of a response. I have therefore temporarily blocked further writes to this page until my investigation can be posted, which I should be able to do within the hour. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have compiled the edit histories of 216.164.203.90 and Wazzawazzawaz, from their initial edits through 12 June 2006, sorted chronologically, to investigate Wazzawazzawaz's complaint of an unreasonable block and warning message on his user and user talk pages.

NOTE: At this point, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the current user of this IP is a vandal. Further actions from someone demonstrating a similar pattern of edits and connection to this IP are likely to be summarily blocked, per pattern-vandalism blocking practice. Sysops will, however, consider the possibility of different users of this IP.

responded to Shadow's inability to find cited author in spy book by citing page & personally attesting to having book

I later explained to Wazzawazzawaz why we need more specific information, and by this time had provided him with some advice to augment that given by Kalki earlier. There have been no further edits (as of 17 June 2006, 19:21 UTC) from either Wazzawazzawaz or 216.164.203.90, except for Wazzawazzawaz's attempts to remove the vandalism warning from his user & user talk pages, and postings to my and Kalki's talk pages, despite supposedly being blocked permanently. (I have reissued the block, but I don't understand how it was bypassed without being logged as unblocked.)

The most telling connection between Wazzawazzawaz and 216.164.203.90 is the cross-activity between them. Waz, who is so impatient that he expects immediate responses from other active editors, goes silent for 13 minutes while 216 adds him to the Wikiquotian list with a comment that implies personal knowledge of him. This is immediately responded to by a Waz post to 216, followed by a removal from the list that appears to confirm this knowledge. (Another 9-minute gap in Waz editing, during which 216 again makes an inflammatory edit, adds to the suspiciousness.) This, combined with posting chatty comments to all active users (verging on trolling, especially after being warned politely) and an proven awareness of WoW vandal variations while claiming to be a newbie, make it quite reasonable for sysops to deem this account to be used as an auxiliary for a known vandal. The business about inadequately sourced quotes, taken in isolation, could simply be a true newbie learning the ropes of sourcing and other Wikiquote practices, but the other activity leads editors to believe otherwise.

With this analysis, I am restoring Kalki's warning messages and unprotecting the user talk page. The user can post further arguments if he wishes, but the account will not be unblocked unless a compelling justification convinces a sysop monitoring this page. If either the user or user talk page are used for activity inappropriate to Wikiquote (like personal attacks or attempts to remove justified warnings), the pages will be protected from editing at the discretion of the sysop staff. ~ Jeff Q(talk) 22:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)